CRLA/839/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 3475 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

CRLA/839/2023 on 29 November, 2023

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      SPLA No.315 of 2023
                                      With
                                      CRLA No.839 of 2023
                                      Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Present Mr. Rahul Adhikari, counsel for the appellant.

2. Heard.

3. Leave is granted. Application made, therefor, stands disposed of.

4. Also heard on the Delay Condonation Application IA No.1/2023.

5. There is a delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal.

6. Counsel for the appellant would submit that this criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate II, Haldwani, District Nainital in criminal case no.2596/2015, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

7. He would submit that there is a delay of 40 days in filing the present appeal; that, the delay occurred as the appellant/complainant was suffering from dengue.

8. Perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application. In para 2 of the affidavit, it is stated that the judgment was passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Haldwani on 16.08.2023 thereby acquitting the respondent/accused under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; that, the applicant/complainant was suffering from dengue and no one was there to lookafter his case and on 26.10.2023 the appellant came to know about the said matter and immediately thereafter he contacted his counsel in the trial court; that, due to lack of money he could not file the criminal appeal before the High Court.

9. On perusal of the grounds mentioned in the affidavit, it would reveal that the period of suffering from dengue by the appellant/applicant is not specifically stated. In the opinion of the Court, the reason furnished for delay is neither satisfactory nor sufficient.

10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the delay condonation application. Same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 29.11.2023 BS